I’ve been struggling with painting some S-1s to represent S-2s. Very similar models but with a few differences that only someone in the “know” would notice. I ran across an article in MR recently where a specific steam locomotive was lettered for a certain road even though the tender didn’t match but it was a “plausible representation”. I’m wondering your opinion if it would it be better to come up with a freelanced unit number to explain the model / tender difference instead of using a known unit number?
I don’t know but,I have 2 Athearn GP7s painted for R.J.Corman GP9s numbers 9007 and 9010.
I stop caring what other modeler’s think since I model to please myself and not others…I fell into that trap when I was younger and as I got older then I started questioning who I was modeling for me or them?
My thoughts exactly.
I agree with Brakie. If you can live with the discrepency, that’s all that matters. I’ve done that in the past, years ago in HO, and have done it more recently in N.
To make matters worse, the road I follow didn’t order dynamic brakes on their engines. In the past before, when road specific details weren’t common, factory painted engines in my road usually had the dynamic brake blisters. I could live with that. I’ve purchased old or used engines and repainted them for my road, brake blister and all.
My model railroad isn’t a musuem. Although I follow a prototype and have it set in 1978, it isn’t meant to be an exact duplication. It represents a time I remember fondly. In fact, it represents things better than they actually were at that time on the road I follow. Even with all the discrepencies I have, it still brings me pleasure, and that’s all that matters to me.
Jeff
As others have suggested, the only opinion that counts is yours.
Personally, I have no problem with “stand in” models that are reasonably close, and as both a freelance and prototype modeler, close enough usually is good enough.
As you mentioned yourself, most people don’t know the difference. To me, even prototype modeling is more about creating the “feeling” of a particular railroad then about every rivet being perfect.
I do lots stuff that would send many a rivet counter into a tailspin - I use (and like) selectively compressed, freelanced passenger cars, I compress history a little to run some stuff that did not quite exist together, I don’t try to simulate actual places, even if I give them actual names.
But I am particular about some details that I think make the scene - passenger cars must be close coupled with working touching diaphragms, same with covered wagon diesels. My freelanced loco fleet is built on a believeable concept of what a railroad like mine would have needed/used. I run long enough trains to seem realistic and believable, just to mention a few.
Now tell us, since we can’t read your mind, what railroads “S-1” or “S-2” are we talking about?
I have what started life as LIMA Berkshires that are now Mikados similar to those built for the DT&I, just bigger w
I certainly agree with the opinions of the previous folks. But your question was:
I think it depends partly on how far off your model is in representing a particular prototype. I don’t know which particular S-1’s and S-2’s you’re speaking of. My first reading was Great Northern 4-8-4’s. Is my guess right?
Anyway, if the model is “real” close, I’d probably number it into the series of the loco I was after. The interpretation of that word “real” is very individual. The farther away from real-close the model was, the more I would lean towards a fake number. After all, the model itself is fake, why not the number?
I’d also consider the likelihood of someday getting an exact (maybe that should be in quotes, too) model of the loco of interest. That one quite likely would look kinda funny next to its littermate, so a different number series might be nice for the fake. Or stand-in.
Ed
If you want a plausible explanation, try this:
Your RR wanted to try a new Alco switcher, so they bought an S1. By the time they evaluated, and decided to buy more, the S1 had been replaced by the S2 in Alco’s production.
If’n you’re talking about Alco switchers, I feel that the S-1 is different enough from the S-2 that I’d go with a fake number.
Ed
I have a dead stock Bachmann HO consolidation lettered and numbered in Santa Fe style running on my Japanese-prototype layout. The number on the tender is 69632, while the cab side is decorated with the speed-script JNR used on 1960s-era EMU and DMU.
It’s a ‘foobie’ for the JNR 9600 class 2-8-0 that it will become once the necessary parts accumulate and the planetary conjunctions all line up.
In the meantime, the four wheel wagons really don’t know that the 9600 pulling the train really isn’t a 9600. Unlike the Reverend Awdrey’s troublesome trucks, they aren’t sentient…
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with foobies and imagineered rolling stock)
Ed, you’re correct, I’m talking about painting an Alco S1 in the late period Milwaukee Road S2 scheme. Biggest visual difference to non rivet counters would be the size of the radiator screens being larger on the s2. I like the fact that there are modelers out there that have done similar things. But I might be just a little too anal to use an S2 model number, so im leaning toward a unique numbering series. But then again I used to model in N scale 20 years ago and even details on locos from manufactures didn’t always match prototype details.
Mark
DRZMARK,
It depends on what you’re trying to do as a model railroader. There’s the extremes where you’re trying to model June 27th, 1953 at 12:01PM and doing it at a 99% or better accuracy. Or, there’s the other end where you’re buying the engines that just look “cool” and mix and match them regardless of reality. Most of us fall in between, I think.
Personally, I tend to look more askance at a totally fake engine than one that’s pretty close but it’s just got some wrong details on it. For example, a NH C-415? It’s hard not to laugh as the NH never had anything like them. A NH C-425 with dynamics? Eh, no big deal, even tho’ the real ones didn’t have them. So IMHO, I would recommend that you put a “known” number on the cab. And if anyone comments, just say that it’s a stand-in until a more accurate model comes along.
Sheldon,
I refuse to take into consideration what “most people” think about anything in regards to this hobby. “Most people” don’t care about trains what-so-ever. To them, Lionel = Brio = Athearn Genesis = LGB. It’s all the same to “most people”. I run into this all the time at my club. “Oh, well, it doesn’t matter if we do something completely unrealistic, most people won’t notice.” Well, yeah. Most people can barely tell the difference between a diesel and a steam engine. I refuse to take the opinions of such people into consideration.
I, like everyone else here, base my expectations upon my own opinions and standards. I am pretty high on accurate engines, cabooses & passenger cars, but could barely care less about most freight cars. I’m also very particular when it comes to paint and lettering, but I barely weather anything. We all have our givens and druthers set differently.
Paul A. Cutle
if it makes you happy, do it. hobbies are about having fun. it’s ok to be as accurate as you can and i admire those who take the trouble, but if you play too many mind games, you can think yourself into a corner.
as a matter of fact, i was getting away with all kinds of inexact modeling until i got my cataracts fixed and now i am trying to play catch up on some of the more obvious fox paws.
charlie
Most won’t know or care if your S1 is painted for a S2.I found the average modeler doesn’t know the difference between most look alike locomotives.These are the guys that make beautiful trees or spend hours building a FSM craftsman kit or scratchbuilding.
But,for the few that do I have such a thing for such occasions.
When a nit picker comes to pick the nits I hand him a box and inside that box is a magnifying glass and a pair of tweezers…[:-,]
That ends any unwanted advice.
I refuse to take into consideration what “most people” think about anything in regards to this hobby. “Most people” don’t care about trains what-so-ever.
Paul let me re-phrase - most model railroaders won’t know the difference.
And my view on freight cars is similar, as long as they are reasonable representations of the their era, they need not be any more accurate than anything else - just no high cubes on a layout representing 1954.
Given a first choice, I prefer correct models, but there limits as to time, expense.operational considerations and effort, and compromises must be made if one plans to build a large home layout like mine.
You and I have already covered all the ground we need to on Clubs and passenger cars.
Sheldon
Looking over the Milwaukee roster below:
http://www.thedieselshop.us/MilwRR.html
For a Milwauke S-1, I think I’d start with 899 and work backwards.
Ed
SHABBONA RR is a protolanced RR and the locomotives thereon purchased and ran as what they are, sans a lot of superdetailing. I did upgrade the exhaust stacks on the one RS-2 and the two RS-3’s on the roster, but I retained the evidence of an air-cooled turbocharger with the stack location on the RS-2 (it gives a lot less trouble than did the prototype). I also have an A-B-A set of F-units that I created out of Wabash Valley (ex-Enhorning shells) with Southwind Models (now BTS) details. My freight and passenger rolling stock rosters follow the same pattern,and am proud of the recognizeable AF heritage of much of it
Despite lacking superdetailing, the locomotives are good representations of their prototypes, and I am happy with them. At least I have an operating layout, and that’s what’s important to me. Prototypical movement of the equipment keeps observation of modeling indescretions to a minimum
Bob Nicholson
Rather than spend the money for one of the Stewart VO-1000 locos lettered for the Pacific Electric, I repainted an old Athearn Blue Box Baldwin S-12 in SP tiger stripes, added scratch built trolley poles, and lettered it for the PE. Nobody who’s seen it yet has had anything negative to say about it. More commonly, once I explain why there are trolley poles on a diesel locomotive they tend to think it must be a very accurate model.
When I modeled Hampton & Branchville #44, I used a stock Bachmann N Scale 4-6-0. Rather than take the time to put a new decoder and smaller tender, I just painted mine with it’s stock tender. It’s not a perfect model of the protoype by any means but it is evocative of the prototype.
If I’m trying to match an actual engine, like the Ma&Pa #70 (an SW1) I get an SW1 if it’s available. The details may not be exactly correct, but I’m generally okay with that. If it’s not available and I get a different model diesel switcher altogether, I’d probably give it a number the Ma&Pa didn’t use.
OTOH, I like camelback locomotives and if an affordable one becomes available in S, I’m buying it for the Ma&Pa even though it never had one… I’ll just give it an number that Ma&Pa didn’t use.
I’m also comfortable running freight cars for road names that didn’t exist like the Gorre & Daphetid. But I don’t find American Flyer boxcars details close enough for me.
I’m trying to capture the essence of the Ma&Pa in the early 50’s, which for me means small steam and diesel locomotive switchers. I’m fortunate in that models of the 4 diesel switchers and 3 of the 8 steam engines are or have been available. Any others that I add will capture the flavor, but likely won’t be close beyond wheel arrangement - so they get an unused number.
In the end, I do what I like, just like many others above are doing. And that is what a hobby should be all about.
Enjoy
Paul
Ed, great idea!